However, the AI is hard to work with, it expects specific wording in order to program our code as expected.
We have hired people with expertise in the specific language needed to transmit our specifications to the AI with more precision.
Also known as programmers.
The "AI" part is irrelevant. Someone with expertise in transmitting specifications to a computer is a programmer, no matter the language.
EDIT: Yep, I realized that it could be the joke, but reading the other comments, it wasn't obvious.
And the manager is happy that filthy programmers are "using" AI.
Speaking English to make something is one thing, but speaking English to modify something complicated is absolutely something else. And Im pretty sure involves more or less the same effort as writing code itself. Of course regression for this something like this is not for the faint hearted.
These people are however not experts in pretending to be a obedient lackeys.
1. Humans also need specific wording in order to program code that stakeholders expected. A lot of people are laughing at AI because they think getting requirements is a human privilege.
2. On the contrary, I don't think people need to hire AI interfacers. Instead, business stakeholders are way more interested to interface with AI simply because they just want to get things done instead of filling a ticket for us. Some of them are going to be good interfacers with proper integration -- and yes we programmers are helping them to do so.
Side note: I don't think you are going to hear someone shouting that they are going to replace humans with AI. It started with this: people integrate AI into their workflow, layoff 10%, and see if AI helps to fill in the gap so they can freeze hire. Then they layoff 10% more.
And yes we programmers are helping the business to do that, with a proud and smile face.
Good luck.
Im not convinced the people writing specs are capable of writing them well enough that an LLM can replace the human dev.
The AI complained that the message did not originate from a programmer and decided not to respond.
Error on line 5: specification can be interpreted too many
ways, can't define type from 'thing':
Remember to underline the thing that shows the error
~~~~~
| This 'thing' matches too many objects in the knowledge scope.